History happening as you hear.
Streamed from the Pacifica Foundation
Also streamed at: C-Span.org
I’s not on cable C-Span 1 (Under God in Pledge of Allegiance), 2 (Mars Rover). It is on C-Span 3 if you get that.
9-11 Hearings Streamed Online
by
Tags:
Comments
12 responses to “9-11 Hearings Streamed Online”
-
Wow. Every time they mention Condi Rice the survivors of 9-11 victims erupt into applause. (She’s opting out of the public hearings)
COMMENT:
What a waste of time, both Clinton and Bush failed to be aggressive enough in hunting down Bin Ladin.But this whole idea that Richard Clarke is putting forth that Bush is somehow responsible for 9-11 is such aggregious behaviour. He seems to forget that Clinton had eight years under HIS WATCH (Clarke’s that is) to do something and failed miserably.
-
Agreed, flounder. Read on Instapundit that Clarke has sworn under oath that he’s not doing this for a job in a Kerry Administration. Someone issued a challenge for him to donate all book proceeds to the victims of 9/11. That would be a true indication of his motives – is he fueled by a desire to cash in on a controversy surrounding his book? Methinks he is.
-
Great idea Christian, lets just see how sincere his apology, which I thought was offensive. He also seems to be a very angry man, perhaps because he no longer had easy access to the President under Bush like he enjoyed with Clinton. But we all see where that got us in 8 years.
-
ps. strange how FOX News was the only media source to reveal Clarke’s contradictory statements about Bush’s terrorist strategy that brought his (Clarke’s) credibility into question. Of course, the media has no liberal bias so it must have been a coincidence.
-
sorry flounder and perhaps others: you’re wrong. were you too busy concerned with oval office blow jobs to bother to watch the real news? “clinton linton had eight years under HIS WATCH (clarke’s that is) to do something and failed miserably”—- this is simply ridiculous and contradicted by fact, such as the sudanese bombings. i’d also like to remind you that when the administration raised the issue of terrorism and the required actions REPUBLICANS accused clinton of “WAGGING THE DOG”! they accused the president of DIVERTING ATTENTION from his PERSONAL problems!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! it’s on the record, LOOK IT UP before you make ridiculous (mis)assertions (did i coin that?) such as labelling serious efforts as miserable failures… and by the way, i am certain you are not even considering the possibility of perhaps somehow implying that the current administrations efforts are any kind of major success or anything of the sort, RIGHT?
-
Huh. Only thing worse than the rabid right is the rabid left. Or was that the other way around?
Yes. Clinton was Christ Incarnate, and Bush is pure evil. Or maybe Bush is our Saviour and Clinton was the Devil.
The media leans left. The media leans right.
And don’t even start with the “facts.”
It’s all enough to give a fella a stomachache. Is there nobody left in the middle?
-
“sorry flounder and perhaps others: you’re wrong. were you too busy concerned with oval office blow jobs to bother to watch the real news? “clinton linton had eight years under HIS WATCH (clarke’s that is) to do something and failed miserably”—- this is simply ridiculous and contradicted by fact, such as the sudanese bombings.”
You’re joking right? Yes, thank God bubba bombed that pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan, otherwise the terrorists would be lobbing prescription drugs at us.
-
The military analyst for Slate hasn’t been on speaking terms with Richard Clarke for 15 years.
See what he has to say about the former anti-terrorism czar in these two articles:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2097685/ -
slate: “Second, the White House’s attempts at rebuttal have been extremely weak and contradictory. If Clarke were wrong, one would expect the comebacks?especially from Bush’s aides, who excel at the counterstrike?to be stronger and more substantive.”
How ironic…here we have someone criticizing Bush for not going on the offensive enough to discredit Clarke, which somehow proves Clarke’s accusations must be correct. Then we have Democrats and the liberal media criticising the Bush Admin. for any attempts to discredit Clarke as nothing more than a smear campaign.
This whole crontroversy is disgraceful, and I think Clarke will eventually be shown for what he is: a disgruntled liar trying to cash in.
-
flounder: what is so disgraceful about blowing the whistle in an open democracy? what is so disgraceful about controversy? our nation was founded on the very principle of rocking the boat, challenging the status quo, mediocrity and the “powers that be”. given the intolerance for dissent of the current administration, in which threats of loss of employment and worse are routine (look here), a certain (if not absolute) degree of line-towing is actually demanded. so because mr clarke now speaks the truth backed by the facts he is a liar? the very frantic and fanatical efforts to discredit and disgrace mr clarke point to true panic among the squatters at the white house (feeling the heat). and flounder: “liberal this liberal that” is ridiculous discourse. use the appropriate term: PROGRESSIVE. to which you may add enlightened, educated, objective and even superior. and as a courtesy i shall refrain from calling you what you yourself have shown yourself to be.
-
“christian”: if your comments weren’t so comical i’d find them offensive. clinton christ and bush pure evil? what absurdity? is that how you see praise and criticism? GROW UP! bush may not be the devil, but certainly, along with his administration and supporters much WORSE. and if you don’t know why i make this statement of FACT, please take the time to learn so, the evidence is objective and incontrovertible. PERIOD. even in the matter of the “leaning of the media”. what do you think, that the fact that the media in the US is terrifyingly slanted towards the “right” despite the perceptions of most americans isn’t quantifyable? well it is. this is not a matter of opinion but of fact. “and don’t even start with the facts”? what are you a priest? LOL the facts are those things by which you should begin to live your life as a thinking human. so yes,, i will start continue and end with just that, the facts. right, left, middle? why do you feel the need to place yourself in such an outmoded and narrow-minded spectrum? open your mind! strive to change for the better and leave bromides behind! rise above mediocrity!
-
“so because mr clarke now speaks the truth backed by the facts he is a liar?”
And which “truth” would that be? The pre-book Mr Clarke or the post-book Mr. Clarke? He says his previous comments should be ignored because they were simply political wrangling, and expects us to believe what he says now? It will be very interesting if comments he made under oath during both his tenure under Clinton and Bush contradict his current testimony. Mr. Clarke may find himself in serious legal trouble for perjury.
“and flounder: “liberal this liberal that” is ridiculous discourse. use the appropriate term: PROGRESSIVE. to which you may add enlightened, educated, objective and even superior. and as a courtesy i shall refrain from calling you what you yourself have shown yourself to be.”
Hahahaha!!! Yes, I realize you liberals think you’re more educated and superior to everyone else, thank you for at least admitting that. This reminds me of Ted Kennedy being interviewed by Tim Russert last week on TV. He absolutely refused to call Kerry a liberal (even while reluctantly admitting himself to be one) exactly because Kerry is rated THE most liberal member of the Senate, even more so than Teddy.
Leave a Reply